Tripartite Treaty of 1838

• Under Lord Auckland's administration, British policy in India took on a more unscrupulous approach. To address their perceived Afghan problem, the British engaged in duplicity and pursued morally indefensible actions, particularly in their treatment of Sindh.
• In June 1838, the British persuaded Ranjit Singh, the ruler of Punjab, to sign a tripartite treaty. This treaty allowed for British mediation in Singh's disputes with the Amirs (rulers) of Sindh. The British used this opportunity to manipulate the situation to their advantage.
• Additionally, the British coerced Emperor Shah Shuja to relinquish his sovereign rights over Sindh in exchange for the payment of arrears of tribute. The exact amount of the tribute was to be determined by the British. Their primary objective was to obtain finances for their Afghan military campaign and secure a line of operation against Afghanistan by acquiring portions of the Amirs' territory in Sindh.
• These actions demonstrated the British government's willingness to pursue its political and strategic goals at the expense of ethical considerations. The treatment of Sindh, starting from this period, was characterized by morally indefensible decisions made in pursuit of political expediency.

Sindh Accepts Subsidiary Alliance (1839)

• In 1839, under the threat of superior force, the Amirs of Sindh were compelled to accept a treaty with the British East India Company. The Company's main objectives were to secure the payment of owed money and to abrogate an article in the 1832 treaty that restricted the movement of English troops in Sindh.
• According to the treaty, a British subsidiary force was to be stationed at Shikarpur and Bukkar, and the Amirs of Sindh were required to pay an annual sum of Rs 3 lakh for the maintenance of the Company's troops. The Amirs were also prohibited from engaging in negotiations with foreign states without the knowledge of the Company. Additionally, they were obligated to provide a storage facility at Karachi for the Company's military supplies, abolish all tolls on the Indus River, and furnish an auxiliary force for the British-Afghan war if requested to do so.
• The acceptance of this treaty effectively established a subsidiary alliance between the British East India Company and the Amirs of Sindh. It further solidified British control over Sindh and increased their influence and presence in the region.

Capitulation of Sindh

• The first Anglo-Afghan War (1839-42) was indeed fought on the soil of Sindh, and the Amirs of Sindh were not in favour of this war or the presence of British troops in their region. Despite their discontent, the Amirs were obligated under the treaty to pay for the expenses incurred by the British presence.
• However, instead of being rewarded or appreciated for their cooperation, the Amirs were accused of hostility and disloyalty towards the British government. Lord Ellenborough, who found himself in a precarious position due to setbacks in the Afghan war, dispatched Sir James Outram to Sindh to negotiate a new treaty.
• Under this new treaty, the Amirs were compelled to cede significant provinces as a punishment for their alleged transgressions. They were also required to provide fuel for the Company's steamers on the Indus and cease minting their own coins. Additionally, when a succession dispute arose among the Amirs, the British intervened through Charles Napier and initiated a war when the Amirs rose in revolt.
• Within a short period, the entire region of Sindh surrendered, and the Amirs' resistance was overcome. The British effectively established control over Sindh through military force and subsequent administration.

Views

• Views of Charles Napier and James Outram regarding the annexation of Sindh. Napier expressed his intention to seize Sindh despite acknowledging that it was not their right to do so. He described it as a "humane piece of rascality" and believed that removing the Amirs, whom he referred to as brutal tyrants, was a worthy act befitting England's greatness. Napier justified the conquest of Sindh as not being an iniquitous action.
• James Outram, serving as Napier's deputy during the annexation, expressed his frustration with diplomatic policies and advocated for a more direct approach using military force. He stated that he was sick of the existing policy and emphasized that while he wouldn't claim it to be the best, using the sword was undoubtedly the quickest way to achieve their goals.
• In 1843, under the governance of Governor-General Ellenborough, Sindh was officially incorporated into the British Empire, and Charles Napier was appointed as its first governor. The Amirs of Sindh were captured, and banished from the region, and the British took control over the territory.

Criticisms of the Conquest of Sindh

• Historians have criticized the British acquisition of Sindh and the motives behind it. They argue that the reasons for annexation were manufactured and that the British employed bullying tactics and deceit throughout their conquest of India, including the First Afghan War. The English suffered significant losses and a loss of prestige in the war with the Afghans. In an attempt to compensate for this, they annexed Sindh. The comment by Elphinstone reflects the perception that the British, having been defeated in Afghanistan, sought revenge by exerting their power over Sindh. This criticism suggests that the annexation of Sindh was driven by a desire to restore its image and assert dominance rather than being a justifiable or legitimate action.